Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 673 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - benefit of peak credit - HELD THAT:- We find from the said statement recorded on oath that the proprietor has also mentioned the dates and amounts on which the said money was advanced by the assessee and when the same was returned to assessee by Maladeep Construction - we find that this part of the statement of proprietor of Maladeep Construction also tally with the bank statement of assessee’s account. Thus, following the principle for application of peak credit as laid down in D.K. GARG [2017 (8) TMI 450 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to benefit of peak credit only in respect of this transaction, which is mentioned in statement of proprietor of Maladeep Construction and which also tallies with assessee’s bank statement, since in respect of said transaction, linkage/chain of transaction through banking channel is evident and therefore, the assessing officer is directed to grant the benefit of peak credit to the assessee in respect of this transaction. In respect of other transactions in assessee’s bank account, if the assessee is able to prove linkage/chain of transaction through banking channel then in respect of those transactions also, following the principle laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in aforesaid decision, benefit of peak credit should be granted to the assessee. With the above directions, we remand the matter to the assessing officer for de novo adjudication - assessee is directed to file necessary details in support of its claim of peak credit in respect of other transactions - As a result, grounds no. 4 and 5 raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. Addition u/s 68 - accommodation entry receipts - HELD THAT:- As in the present case, the assessee has not admitted itself to be an accommodation entry provider and has claimed itself to be an employee working in finance company having income from salary in addition to having the distribution agency and the fact whether any commission income was earned by the assessee is also not on record. Further, even before the lower authorities assessee has not claimed to have earned commission income. Thus, the petition seeking admission of additional ground filed by the assessee is rejected. From the perusal of profit and loss account of Rainbow Enterprises, forming part of the paper book, it is evident that the assessee was paid remuneration of Rs. 30,081 as partner and said amount was added as business income by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) upholding the aforesaid addition
|